4.2 Article

Apraxia in Mild Cognitive Impairment and Alzheimer's Disease: Validity and Reliability of the Van Heugten Test for Apraxia

Journal

DEMENTIA AND GERIATRIC COGNITIVE DISORDERS
Volume 38, Issue 1-2, Pages 55-64

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000358168

Keywords

Dementia; Memory clinic cohort; Praxis; Neuropsychology

Funding

  1. Alzheimer Nederland and Stichting VUmc Fonds
  2. Stichting Dioraphte
  3. Stichting VUmc Fonds

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim: To assess the reliability and validity of the Van Heugten test for apraxia (VHA), developed for and used in stroke patients, in a memory clinic population. Furthermore, we assess the presence and severity of apraxia in mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's disease (AD) and investigate which AD patients are likely to develop apraxia. Methods: We included 90 controls (age: 60 +/- 9 years, MMSE: 28 +/- 2), 90 MCI patients (age: 65 +/- 7 years, MMSE: 26 +/- 2) and 158 AD patients (age: 66 +/- 8 years, MMSE: 20 +/- 5). Apraxia was evaluated by the VHA assessing ideational and ideomotor praxis. We retested 20 patients to assess reliability. Results: Intrarater reliability was 0.88 and interrater reliability was 0.73. AD patients performed worse on the VHA (median: 88; range: 51-90) than controls (median: 90; range: 88-90) and MCI patients (median: 89; range: 84-90) (both p < 0.001). Apraxia was prevalent in 35% of AD patients, in 10% of MCI and it was not observed in controls (0%; p < 0.001). In AD, dementia severity was the main risk for apraxia; 15% of mildly versus 52% of moderately demented patients had apraxia (OR = 6.7, 95% CI 2.9-15.6). The second risk factor was APOE genotype. APOE epsilon 4 noncarriers (47%) were at increased risk compared to carriers (30%) (OR = 2.1, 95% CI 1-4.7). Conclusion: Apraxia can be reliably measured with the VHA and is present in a proportion of patients with MCI and AD. The presence of apraxia in AD is related to dementia severity and APOE epsilon 4. (C) 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available